Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Tucker’s latest rant is a textbook example of scapegoating. He asks why we “talk about Israel” instead of why kids can’t afford homes — as if Jewish people or support for Israel somehow caused America’s housing crisis. That’s not analysis. That’s an old dog whistle dressed up as populism.... The facts are simple: •We’ve supported Israel for 70+ years without a housing crisis. •What did change? Washington printed $6 trillion during COVID, the Fed whiplashed rates, and Wall Street investors bought up neighborhoods while millions of new arrivals added pressure to already short housing supply. •Result: The top 1% gained over $2 trillion in wealth, while wages for ordinary Americans fell behind inflation. And if Tucker really wants to talk about billionaires, let’s be honest: Bill Ackman made his money the old-fashioned way — through hedge-fund bets at Pershing Square. Agree with him or not, it’s transparent. Meanwhile, Tucker’s own startup was bankrolled by 1789 Capital, a fund that openly courts foreign sovereign wealth but doesn’t disclose its limited partners. He’s quick to question how Jews make money but never mentions where his money came from. This isn’t just wrongheaded, it’s dishonest. It deliberately divides people who are finally uniting around common-sense policies like sound money, secure borders, and affordable housing. And by pushing the idea that “everything is awful because of the Jews,” Tucker makes Trump look no different from Biden, a textbook psy-op designed to fracture the very coalition that could fix these problems by demoralizing everyone.show more

Insurrection Barbie

1,021,738 subscribers

219,158 views • 1 year ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics Comedy Finance

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Tucker: "Neocons" like Ben Shapiro only care about money for Israel. Fuentes: Jews like Shapiro are only "here" to... get money for Israel. Tucker didn't just interview Fuentes; he has adopted his language and framing, but with "neocons" instead of Jews. In the clips below, both use ad hominem attacks to escape engaging any actual argument over the efficacy of U.S. support for Israel. Of course, Fuentes and Tucker utilize the oldest of anti-Semitic tropes, the notion of Jews (or "neocons") having dual loyalties, which has been weaponized for thousands of years to sow distrust and eventually hatred for thousands of years. Opposing financial support of Israel is an entirely legitimate position that can easily be justified using conservative principles. Plenty of conservatives have been opposed to the U.S. annual military aid to Israel, including figures as diverse as Rand Paul and, yes, Ben Shapiro. Maybe that's why the primary defense of Tucker by Megyn Kelly and others has been that he's somehow just "criticizing Israel." But when Fuentes said in 2023 that Shapiro, Dennis Prager, Mark Levin, and Joel Pollak "are running American media" and are "here (apparently living in the U.S.) to make sure Americans support the country they really care about," what possible argument is he making about policy? The same holds true when Tucker Carlson just this month said that "Shapiro and all of these guys" don't "care" about their own audiences "at all" (or, by implication, America at large) because their supposed tactic is "give us money for our preferred little country, or we're going to denounce you!" Put another way, what could Fuentes or Tucker possibly be trying to advance besides the notion that the views of Shapiro/Jews/"neocons" should not be trusted on any issue, even those having nothing to do with Israel?

Tucker: "Neocons" like Ben Shapiro only care about money for Israel. Fuentes: Jews like Shapiro are only "here" to... get money for Israel. Tucker didn't just interview Fuentes; he has adopted his language and framing, but with "neocons" instead of Jews. In the clips below, both use ad hominem attacks to escape engaging any actual argument over the efficacy of U.S. support for Israel. Of course, Fuentes and Tucker utilize the oldest of anti-Semitic tropes, the notion of Jews (or "neocons") having dual loyalties, which has been weaponized for thousands of years to sow distrust and eventually hatred for thousands of years. Opposing financial support of Israel is an entirely legitimate position that can easily be justified using conservative principles. Plenty of conservatives have been opposed to the U.S. annual military aid to Israel, including figures as diverse as Rand Paul and, yes, Ben Shapiro. Maybe that's why the primary defense of Tucker by Megyn Kelly and others has been that he's somehow just "criticizing Israel." But when Fuentes said in 2023 that Shapiro, Dennis Prager, Mark Levin, and Joel Pollak "are running American media" and are "here (apparently living in the U.S.) to make sure Americans support the country they really care about," what possible argument is he making about policy? The same holds true when Tucker Carlson just this month said that "Shapiro and all of these guys" don't "care" about their own audiences "at all" (or, by implication, America at large) because their supposed tactic is "give us money for our preferred little country, or we're going to denounce you!" Put another way, what could Fuentes or Tucker possibly be trying to advance besides the notion that the views of Shapiro/Jews/"neocons" should not be trusted on any issue, even those having nothing to do with Israel?

Joel Mowbray

165,513 views • 10 months ago

RFK Jr. at The Real Debate: “These two men are the people who ran up the deficit that is causing the inflation” “That’s why we have $4 milk, $4 bread, $6 gasoline” “President Trump came into office promising to balance the budget. Instead, he spent more money in office than every President in US history combined, from George Washington to George W. Bush. President Biden will beat him, he’s already run up $6.3 trillion in debt. That’s why we have inflation. Inflation is caused because they’re printing money to pay for these expenses that we don’t have, and that money is then a tax on the poor. That’s why we have $4 milk, $4 bread, $6 gasoline. It’s because of the forever wars, the out of control spending by these two gentlemen. We have a $34 trillion debt now. The interest alone on that debt is costing us more than our military budget. This is existential. This is one of the problems neither of these two will talk about. This is the reason that they need me on stage, because I would confront them with what they did. They were the ones who ran up half of this deficit … and that’s what’s causing inflation. We’ll never deal with the inflation if we don’t deal with the money printing problem, and neither of them are gonna do it.”

RFK Jr. at The Real Debate: “These two men are the people who ran up the deficit that is causing the inflation” “That’s why we have $4 milk, $4 bread, $6 gasoline” “President Trump came into office promising to balance the budget. Instead, he spent more money in office than every President in US history combined, from George Washington to George W. Bush. President Biden will beat him, he’s already run up $6.3 trillion in debt. That’s why we have inflation. Inflation is caused because they’re printing money to pay for these expenses that we don’t have, and that money is then a tax on the poor. That’s why we have $4 milk, $4 bread, $6 gasoline. It’s because of the forever wars, the out of control spending by these two gentlemen. We have a $34 trillion debt now. The interest alone on that debt is costing us more than our military budget. This is existential. This is one of the problems neither of these two will talk about. This is the reason that they need me on stage, because I would confront them with what they did. They were the ones who ran up half of this deficit … and that’s what’s causing inflation. We’ll never deal with the inflation if we don’t deal with the money printing problem, and neither of them are gonna do it.”

MAHA PAC🗽

391,565 views • 2 years ago

BREAKING: Tucker Carlson just unleashed one of the dumbest rants I’ve ever seen about Bill Ackman . First, he hinted Ackman was some kind of “sex creep.” Then, he mocked him for becoming wealthy by being “well connected and aggressive.” What the hell is Tucker even talking about? That’s literally how capitalism works. Nobody gets rich by hiding in their basement. You build wealth by hustling, being aggressive, and building connections. That’s how you raise money, find investors, and actually get businesses off the ground. The craziest part is Tucker pretends he’s defending the free market while bashing the very qualities that make the free market function. Total contradiction. And whatever you think of Bill Ackman, the guy has actually contributed. Through Pershing Square he’s backed some of America’s biggest companies, helping them grow and employ thousands. He’s donated hundreds of millions through his foundation to education, health, and research. And unlike most billionaires who stay quiet, he’s been willing to speak up publicly, even when it costs him. Meanwhile Tucker has reduced his entire platform to smearing Israel day after day. He isn’t building anything, he isn’t offering solutions, he’s just recycling the same tired talking points to rile people up. That’s his whole brand now. The irony is he only made it himself by being well connected and aggressive. He grew up wealthy, had doors opened for him, and clawed his way into media by being loud. Exactly what he’s mocking Ackman for….

JeremyUnplugged

275,491 views • 1 year ago

How Inflation Forces People to Use Houses as a Savings Vehicle Saifedean Ammous explains how inflation (which is caused by governments / banks increasing the money supply by interest credit expansion) which leads to the loss of fiat money’s value, has changed the way people think about housing. In the past, under a scarce money standard money held its value better, so people could save for the future by simply saving in gold. For example, a gold coin could sit under a mattress for years and still hold its value. You can't do that today with easily created fiat government money. Today, with inflation causing money to lose value people need to find other ways to store their wealth / purchasing power. Holding fiat cash or government interest bearing bonds means losing purchasing power in the long term, so many turn to real estate. Ammous argues that this has led people to treat houses as savings accounts, even though houses are consumer goods, not true investments. A house doesn’t produce anything; it’s something you use, like a car or a washing machine, it just lasts longer. This change is a direct result of inflation. Since money no longer holds its value, people feel forced to buy houses to protect their savings which they spent time and energy to work for and save. Instead of keeping cash in the bank, they buy a house. As inflation drives the value of money down, house prices go up in fiat terms. This creates the illusion of making money, but in reality it's an indication that the money we are forced to use by nation states is losing value every year. Ammous highlights the impact this has on young people. When someone in their 20s or 30s tries to buy a home, they’re not just competing with others their age. They’re also up against older people or investors who see houses as better options than holding cash. These investors might be dentists, architects,doctors ,or other professionals who don’t actually want to be landlords but buy homes and rent them out because it’s a way to escape inflation. This pushes house prices even higher, making it harder for young people to afford homes. Ammous also points out that treating houses as financial assets affects how they’re built. Developers prioritize profit over quality or beauty, leading to homes that lack character or durability. Houses are no longer designed as places to live and enjoy but as tools for storing wealth and beating inflation. This is a HUGE problem.

How Inflation Forces People to Use Houses as a Savings Vehicle Saifedean Ammous explains how inflation (which is caused by governments / banks increasing the money supply by interest credit expansion) which leads to the loss of fiat money’s value, has changed the way people think about housing. In the past, under a scarce money standard money held its value better, so people could save for the future by simply saving in gold. For example, a gold coin could sit under a mattress for years and still hold its value. You can't do that today with easily created fiat government money. Today, with inflation causing money to lose value people need to find other ways to store their wealth / purchasing power. Holding fiat cash or government interest bearing bonds means losing purchasing power in the long term, so many turn to real estate. Ammous argues that this has led people to treat houses as savings accounts, even though houses are consumer goods, not true investments. A house doesn’t produce anything; it’s something you use, like a car or a washing machine, it just lasts longer. This change is a direct result of inflation. Since money no longer holds its value, people feel forced to buy houses to protect their savings which they spent time and energy to work for and save. Instead of keeping cash in the bank, they buy a house. As inflation drives the value of money down, house prices go up in fiat terms. This creates the illusion of making money, but in reality it's an indication that the money we are forced to use by nation states is losing value every year. Ammous highlights the impact this has on young people. When someone in their 20s or 30s tries to buy a home, they’re not just competing with others their age. They’re also up against older people or investors who see houses as better options than holding cash. These investors might be dentists, architects,doctors ,or other professionals who don’t actually want to be landlords but buy homes and rent them out because it’s a way to escape inflation. This pushes house prices even higher, making it harder for young people to afford homes. Ammous also points out that treating houses as financial assets affects how they’re built. Developers prioritize profit over quality or beauty, leading to homes that lack character or durability. Houses are no longer designed as places to live and enjoy but as tools for storing wealth and beating inflation. This is a HUGE problem.

Akbar Zab

43,766 views • 1 year ago

Matt Walsh says to make home ownership more affordable and not doom every future generation to $1 million dollar+ homes they can never afford, “we must become less tolerant” He’s talking about immigrants, they have to be deported and not care about what the media says “If you're a young person who wants a home, just know that there's a reason it's so bad out there. It's because the number of desirable places is rapidly declining. Lots of prime real estate is taken up by the worst and most violent people in the country” “The government is deliberately destroying the value of the dollar while also importing millions of people and making it impossible to build anything new. That's what's going on. As a result — We can either doom future generations to a market that consists entirely of $1 million homes they can't afford. Or we can make the decision, as unthinkable as it may be to somebody like Ed Sheeran, to become a lot less tolerant” He’s right, Legal and illegal immigration increase housing demand. Studies from economists at Harvard estimate immigration accounts for as much as 40% demand growth in homes If we didn’t have their extra 40% of demand from people the government is importing, housing wouldn’t have increased as fast as it did. Housing prices would significantly drop if these people weren’t here

Matt Walsh says to make home ownership more affordable and not doom every future generation to $1 million dollar+ homes they can never afford, “we must become less tolerant” He’s talking about immigrants, they have to be deported and not care about what the media says “If you're a young person who wants a home, just know that there's a reason it's so bad out there. It's because the number of desirable places is rapidly declining. Lots of prime real estate is taken up by the worst and most violent people in the country” “The government is deliberately destroying the value of the dollar while also importing millions of people and making it impossible to build anything new. That's what's going on. As a result — We can either doom future generations to a market that consists entirely of $1 million homes they can't afford. Or we can make the decision, as unthinkable as it may be to somebody like Ed Sheeran, to become a lot less tolerant” He’s right, Legal and illegal immigration increase housing demand. Studies from economists at Harvard estimate immigration accounts for as much as 40% demand growth in homes If we didn’t have their extra 40% of demand from people the government is importing, housing wouldn’t have increased as fast as it did. Housing prices would significantly drop if these people weren’t here

Wall Street Apes

94,013 views • 3 months ago

The majority of Israeli Jews are the descendants of refugees from the Middle East and Africa. My grandmother came to Israel in the early 50s from Iraq, after watching her best friend be raped and a Jewish mother and her 9 children slaughtered by Arabs. She was not alone, almost a million Jewish refugees were forced to leave the Middle East and Africa by Arab and Islamic countries, solely because they were Jews. But all of this does not matter as much as the basic fact that Jews became a people in the land of Israel. This is proven by archaeological, by genealogical, and historical facts. Some Jews lived in Europe for a few hundred years (Ashkenazi Jews), does that make them indigenous to Poland? Of course not, because if that was the case then any white American is indigenous to the USA. That's not how it works. You argue that "only fair-skinned people get sympathy," yet Israelis, who are white in your eyes, had their murders and rapes celebrated by the world. Not to mention how antisemitism is not taken seriously, especially by people like you, yet Jews are supposably white and privileged. But they are not white enough for the Nazis. It doesn't add up. Maybe, just maybe, this isn’t about the race of Jews, but rather about the age old hatred that has never left the world.

The majority of Israeli Jews are the descendants of refugees from the Middle East and Africa. My grandmother came to Israel in the early 50s from Iraq, after watching her best friend be raped and a Jewish mother and her 9 children slaughtered by Arabs. She was not alone, almost a million Jewish refugees were forced to leave the Middle East and Africa by Arab and Islamic countries, solely because they were Jews. But all of this does not matter as much as the basic fact that Jews became a people in the land of Israel. This is proven by archaeological, by genealogical, and historical facts. Some Jews lived in Europe for a few hundred years (Ashkenazi Jews), does that make them indigenous to Poland? Of course not, because if that was the case then any white American is indigenous to the USA. That's not how it works. You argue that "only fair-skinned people get sympathy," yet Israelis, who are white in your eyes, had their murders and rapes celebrated by the world. Not to mention how antisemitism is not taken seriously, especially by people like you, yet Jews are supposably white and privileged. But they are not white enough for the Nazis. It doesn't add up. Maybe, just maybe, this isn’t about the race of Jews, but rather about the age old hatred that has never left the world.

Hen Mazzig

187,982 views • 2 years ago

With the attacks by Hamas in Israel, a lot of people are spreading misinformation alleging that the US gave Iran $6 billion and that this money is the cause for the escalation. This is simply an outright lie. - Yes, Iran has supported Hamas, and Hamas obtained a lot of weapons from Iran. - No, the US did NOT give Iran $6 billion, and it certainly did not end up in the hands of terrorists. What really happened with the $6 billion. - The US unfroze $6 billion in Iranian money (Not US money or US taxpayer dollars). It was Iran’s money that was in South Korean bank accounts. The money came from oil sales that were put into accounts that were set up under the Trump administration. - The US allowed the money to be transferred to accounts in Qatar, without violating sanctions, in exchange for 5 US citizens getting to come home to their families. - The US has strict limits on how the money can be used, and it is NOT under the complete control of the Iranian government. The money is only permitted to be taken out in exchange for humanitarian purchase such as food, medicine, and farm supplies. The US still has the ability to freeze the money if any rules are broken and they can validate where every dollar that is withdrawn ends up going. Those are the facts.

With the attacks by Hamas in Israel, a lot of people are spreading misinformation alleging that the US gave Iran $6 billion and that this money is the cause for the escalation. This is simply an outright lie. - Yes, Iran has supported Hamas, and Hamas obtained a lot of weapons from Iran. - No, the US did NOT give Iran $6 billion, and it certainly did not end up in the hands of terrorists. What really happened with the $6 billion. - The US unfroze $6 billion in Iranian money (Not US money or US taxpayer dollars). It was Iran’s money that was in South Korean bank accounts. The money came from oil sales that were put into accounts that were set up under the Trump administration. - The US allowed the money to be transferred to accounts in Qatar, without violating sanctions, in exchange for 5 US citizens getting to come home to their families. - The US has strict limits on how the money can be used, and it is NOT under the complete control of the Iranian government. The money is only permitted to be taken out in exchange for humanitarian purchase such as food, medicine, and farm supplies. The US still has the ability to freeze the money if any rules are broken and they can validate where every dollar that is withdrawn ends up going. Those are the facts.

Ed Krassenstein

5,058,909 views • 3 years ago

Nick Fuentes exposes the hypocrisy of “principled” conservatives by showing how Ben Shapiro’s support for Trump hinges on a single issue: Israel. “The Trump administration fears the Israel lobby…Why? Because Israelis have independent power.” “Ben Shapiro will not vote for Trump if he doesn’t think Trump is pro-Israel. Think about that…Why is the Republican Party scared of offending Israel and jews? Because Israel and jews have power.” “It’s not just that they have power, but they’re willing to use it for their own interests.” “Honest question: let’s say Trump keeps every single one of his policies, but he doesn’t support Israel. Is Ben Shapiro voting for Trump? Yes or no? We all know the answer is no.” “There’s a lesson in this: take your own side.” “These are our demands. They’re simple. We do not want a war in Iran. We do not want a single net immigrant coming into the country. You work out the details. Otherwise, we’re staying home and you can take your chances. You figure out the f**king math on that.” “We have to use our power…What do we have to lose?”

Nick Fuentes exposes the hypocrisy of “principled” conservatives by showing how Ben Shapiro’s support for Trump hinges on a single issue: Israel. “The Trump administration fears the Israel lobby…Why? Because Israelis have independent power.” “Ben Shapiro will not vote for Trump if he doesn’t think Trump is pro-Israel. Think about that…Why is the Republican Party scared of offending Israel and jews? Because Israel and jews have power.” “It’s not just that they have power, but they’re willing to use it for their own interests.” “Honest question: let’s say Trump keeps every single one of his policies, but he doesn’t support Israel. Is Ben Shapiro voting for Trump? Yes or no? We all know the answer is no.” “There’s a lesson in this: take your own side.” “These are our demands. They’re simple. We do not want a war in Iran. We do not want a single net immigrant coming into the country. You work out the details. Otherwise, we’re staying home and you can take your chances. You figure out the f**king math on that.” “We have to use our power…What do we have to lose?”

Fractured Light

92,749 views • 9 months ago

Joe Rogan guest Andrew Wilson dismantles the core promise behind the socialist movement. WILSON: “One of the fundamental ideas here that’s flawed…” “How many times can you vote yourself the wealth of those above you, before they have no more wealth to give you?” “Out east, in fact, when you see these communists, Mamdani…they’re going to institute all of their programs on your dime.” “It’s not like they have money.” “And whenever I talk to people about wealth disparity, what’s really funny to me is they always seem to think that the government can just materialize wealth without there having to be some payback for that wealth.” “We saw this during COVID-19, the lockdowns. Remember they were handing out money like it was candy…COVID relief funds…” “And then they go, well, inflation’s out of control.” [Wilson laughs] “Well…yeah…is it?!” “You’re kidding. Is it? Do you mean the government can’t just materialize a TRILLION dollars and not inflate the money supply?!” “Go figure!” “A lot of times these socialists, they even try to make the promise like, hey, we’re only going to tax them after this rate…” “But it’s never enough money for them to fund their socialist programs to begin with.” “The government will have to materialize money.” ROGAN: “Not only that. If you give them more money, they’re going to expand the government.”

Joe Rogan guest Andrew Wilson dismantles the core promise behind the socialist movement. WILSON: “One of the fundamental ideas here that’s flawed…” “How many times can you vote yourself the wealth of those above you, before they have no more wealth to give you?” “Out east, in fact, when you see these communists, Mamdani…they’re going to institute all of their programs on your dime.” “It’s not like they have money.” “And whenever I talk to people about wealth disparity, what’s really funny to me is they always seem to think that the government can just materialize wealth without there having to be some payback for that wealth.” “We saw this during COVID-19, the lockdowns. Remember they were handing out money like it was candy…COVID relief funds…” “And then they go, well, inflation’s out of control.” [Wilson laughs] “Well…yeah…is it?!” “You’re kidding. Is it? Do you mean the government can’t just materialize a TRILLION dollars and not inflate the money supply?!” “Go figure!” “A lot of times these socialists, they even try to make the promise like, hey, we’re only going to tax them after this rate…” “But it’s never enough money for them to fund their socialist programs to begin with.” “The government will have to materialize money.” ROGAN: “Not only that. If you give them more money, they’re going to expand the government.”

Overton

31,195 views • 1 month ago

Tomorrow I'm publishing an excellent conversation on the housing crisis with Peter Tulip (Peter Tulip). My big update from the conversation is just how *long* it will take to resolve the housing crisis by focusing on supply. According to Peter, to bring prices in Sydney and Melbourne down by about 40% using an "extremely ambitious" supply-side policy—that is, a hypothetical policy even more aggressive than the national cabinet's target of 1.2 million homes over 5 years—would still take 10 to 20 years. But even that strikes me as far too long to wait. The housing crisis is causing problems (for example, for productivity and fertility) which will continue compounding into increasingly terrible outcomes if given decades to run (even if prices are gradually moderating over that time). So what's stopping us from adopting a maximally ambitious policy for speeding up new supply? The constraints seem to me to be mostly political. For one, housing has (for better or worse) become the way the middle class gets rich in Australia. Without offering the home-owning constituency an alternative vision for wealth creation, I worry that the supply-side agenda entails a slow, decades-long grind. Peter and I discuss this idea of needing an alternative vision in our conversation, too (though not in the clip below). Subscribe at the links below to be notified when it's published.

Tomorrow I'm publishing an excellent conversation on the housing crisis with Peter Tulip (Peter Tulip). My big update from the conversation is just how long it will take to resolve the housing crisis by focusing on supply. According to Peter, to bring prices in Sydney and Melbourne down by about 40% using an "extremely ambitious" supply-side policy—that is, a hypothetical policy even more aggressive than the national cabinet's target of 1.2 million homes over 5 years—would still take 10 to 20 years. But even that strikes me as far too long to wait. The housing crisis is causing problems (for example, for productivity and fertility) which will continue compounding into increasingly terrible outcomes if given decades to run (even if prices are gradually moderating over that time). So what's stopping us from adopting a maximally ambitious policy for speeding up new supply? The constraints seem to me to be mostly political. For one, housing has (for better or worse) become the way the middle class gets rich in Australia. Without offering the home-owning constituency an alternative vision for wealth creation, I worry that the supply-side agenda entails a slow, decades-long grind. Peter and I discuss this idea of needing an alternative vision in our conversation, too (though not in the clip below). Subscribe at the links below to be notified when it's published.

Joseph Noel Walker

15,330 views • 1 year ago

If this isn’t enough to convince you to vote for Trump then absolutely nothing will. I 👉strongly 👈 encourage everyone to listen to this clip! This man talks about how Biden/Harris have severely mismanaged money FOR the American ppl! In 2023, FEMA allocated over $780 million toward different cities/states to help with the migrant crisis, the crisis created by Biden/Harris. NOT Trump! In 2024 FEMA has already allocated about $770 million toward the same thing! The money allocation comes from the Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP) designed for American citizens in cases of emergency food or shelter crisis. During the Palestine, Ohio, crisis a whopping ZERO FEMA dollars was given to American citizens. During the Maui wildfire crisis, the 7,000 residents got a total of about $50 million for housing assistance and rebuilding. In NC, where there is absolute destruction, Biden/Harris authorized a whopping $750 to assist, keeping in mind that most of these people have no way to access that money, they don’t even have access to a bank! Most of the assistance is coming from private citizens. Elon, Trump & others have already offered free Starlink. So… Biden/Harris’ mismanagement of money has resulted in massive amounts of FEMA money given to iLLegals and outrageous amounts of tax payer dollars to other countries (see photo)! Democrats have, and always will be, AMERICA LAST!!!!

If this isn’t enough to convince you to vote for Trump then absolutely nothing will. I 👉strongly 👈 encourage everyone to listen to this clip! This man talks about how Biden/Harris have severely mismanaged money FOR the American ppl! In 2023, FEMA allocated over $780 million toward different cities/states to help with the migrant crisis, the crisis created by Biden/Harris. NOT Trump! In 2024 FEMA has already allocated about $770 million toward the same thing! The money allocation comes from the Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP) designed for American citizens in cases of emergency food or shelter crisis. During the Palestine, Ohio, crisis a whopping ZERO FEMA dollars was given to American citizens. During the Maui wildfire crisis, the 7,000 residents got a total of about $50 million for housing assistance and rebuilding. In NC, where there is absolute destruction, Biden/Harris authorized a whopping $750 to assist, keeping in mind that most of these people have no way to access that money, they don’t even have access to a bank! Most of the assistance is coming from private citizens. Elon, Trump & others have already offered free Starlink. So… Biden/Harris’ mismanagement of money has resulted in massive amounts of FEMA money given to iLLegals and outrageous amounts of tax payer dollars to other countries (see photo)! Democrats have, and always will be, AMERICA LAST!!!!

Sequencer

94,407 views • 2 years ago

Dick Carlson, Tucker's dad, loved Israel. I should know. I was with him in Israel for 10 straight days. Every bus ride, every tour, every meal. At Yad Vashem, I'll never forget what he said: "Thank God the Jews have Israel." Dick Carlson knew that Jews have faced unique threats throughout history, and that Israel was necessary to protect Jews everywhere. I know that because he told me that. Not long after we returned from Israel, I started working for FDD, where he was already. We would have lunch every month or two for years. I can say without reservation that when it comes to Israel and the Jews, Tucker Carlson is no Dick Carlson. Dick Carlson supported Israel. Dick Carlson hated Hamas. Dick Carlson called "Radical Islam" an "enemy of the United States and of the West." Dick Carlson didn't question the patriotism of Jews who supported Israel. Dick Carlson didn't hate Christians who supported Israel, not least because he was one of them. Dick Carlson didn't insist that Jews needed to take DNA tests to prove that they're actually Jews. Dick Carlson never slandered "Zionists" by saying that they "don't care about America" or accused them of having "not much of a soul." Dick Carlson, in fact, rarely used the word "Zionist," even though he worked with many of them. And, of course, he was a Zionist himself. How did Dick Carlson describe the Jewish state? "Israel is a country under siege. And it's a democracy in a part of the world where there are no democracies." If you're looking for a north star to help you understand Israel and the Muslim world, you could do a lot worse than the late, great Dick Carlson. Like, for instance, his son Tucker.

Dick Carlson, Tucker's dad, loved Israel. I should know. I was with him in Israel for 10 straight days. Every bus ride, every tour, every meal. At Yad Vashem, I'll never forget what he said: "Thank God the Jews have Israel." Dick Carlson knew that Jews have faced unique threats throughout history, and that Israel was necessary to protect Jews everywhere. I know that because he told me that. Not long after we returned from Israel, I started working for FDD, where he was already. We would have lunch every month or two for years. I can say without reservation that when it comes to Israel and the Jews, Tucker Carlson is no Dick Carlson. Dick Carlson supported Israel. Dick Carlson hated Hamas. Dick Carlson called "Radical Islam" an "enemy of the United States and of the West." Dick Carlson didn't question the patriotism of Jews who supported Israel. Dick Carlson didn't hate Christians who supported Israel, not least because he was one of them. Dick Carlson didn't insist that Jews needed to take DNA tests to prove that they're actually Jews. Dick Carlson never slandered "Zionists" by saying that they "don't care about America" or accused them of having "not much of a soul." Dick Carlson, in fact, rarely used the word "Zionist," even though he worked with many of them. And, of course, he was a Zionist himself. How did Dick Carlson describe the Jewish state? "Israel is a country under siege. And it's a democracy in a part of the world where there are no democracies." If you're looking for a north star to help you understand Israel and the Muslim world, you could do a lot worse than the late, great Dick Carlson. Like, for instance, his son Tucker.

Joel Mowbray

2,227,321 views • 7 months ago

THE PATHETIC MYTH OF KENYA’S SO-CALLED “OLD MONEY” Let’s get one thing straight: there’s no such thing as “old money” in Kenya, or most of East Africa for that matter. What we have instead is a grotesque parade of self-styled elites, strutting around with bloated egos and ill-gotten wealth, pretending their stolen fortunes qualify them for some aristocratic badge of honor. Spoiler alert: it doesn’t. If your grandfather didn’t build an industry, invent something groundbreaking, or at least run a legitimate factory, you’re not old money. You’re just the lucky spawn of a corrupt hustler who hit the jackpot in the cesspool of Kenyan politics. Let’s talk about these so-called “old money” families. Their wealth didn’t come from ingenuity or hard work. No, no. Their fortunes were cobbled together through land theft, shady tenderpreneurship, and the kind of brazen corruption that leaves entire communities homeless and destitute. These are the people who’ve been fleecing Kenya for decades, snatching public resources like vultures and leaving nothing but misery in their wake. And yet, they have the audacity to parade their stolen riches as some kind of legacy? Please. For instance, will our children refer to an idiot like George Ruo old money in the years to come? Don’t make me laugh. His money is as old as the last bribe they pocketed or the last plot of land they grabbed from a vulnerable community. These are the architects of Kenya’s suffering, the ones who’ve built empires on the backs of the poor, all while cloaking themselves in the shiny veneer of “success.” If we had a functional government, one that actually cared about justice - these crooks would be stripped of their loot faster than you can say “offshore account.” Their so-called wealth would vanish, and they’d be left with nothing but their tattered reputations. Compare that to real old money, the kind you see in places like the U.S. Take the Cadillacs, for instance, who started a grain processing plant back in the 1800s and turned it into one of the world’s largest agricultural empires. Or Ford, whose name is synonymous with innovation and industry. Those families built something. They created jobs, drove progress, and left a legacy that’s actually worth celebrating. Their wealth is rooted in effort, ideas, and tangible contributions to society - not in looting public coffers or swindling land from defenseless communities like the Kenyatta Family Criminal Enterprise (KFCE). But in Kenya? The “old money” crowd is a different breed. Their great-granddaddy didn’t have a brilliant idea that changed the world. No, their daddy was probably an MP who siphoned off the entire constituency budget, stashed it in some shady offshore account, or “invested” it in a string of dubious businesses. That’s not wealth; that’s theft dressed up in a fancy suit. Trace their money, and you’ll find a trail of tears - stolen land, rigged tenders, and a legacy of greed that’s left Kenya poorer for it. So, let’s stop pretending. There’s no old money in Kenya, just old corruption. These people aren’t tycoons; they’re thieves who belong behind bars, not on pedestals. The next time someone tries to flex their “old money” credentials, remind them: real wealth builds, creates, and uplifts. Theirs just destroys. And if a truly transformative government ever takes charge, one that puts Kenyans first, these frauds will be exposed for what they are - nothing more than glorified looters hiding behind a myth.

THE PATHETIC MYTH OF KENYA’S SO-CALLED “OLD MONEY” Let’s get one thing straight: there’s no such thing as “old money” in Kenya, or most of East Africa for that matter. What we have instead is a grotesque parade of self-styled elites, strutting around with bloated egos and ill-gotten wealth, pretending their stolen fortunes qualify them for some aristocratic badge of honor. Spoiler alert: it doesn’t. If your grandfather didn’t build an industry, invent something groundbreaking, or at least run a legitimate factory, you’re not old money. You’re just the lucky spawn of a corrupt hustler who hit the jackpot in the cesspool of Kenyan politics. Let’s talk about these so-called “old money” families. Their wealth didn’t come from ingenuity or hard work. No, no. Their fortunes were cobbled together through land theft, shady tenderpreneurship, and the kind of brazen corruption that leaves entire communities homeless and destitute. These are the people who’ve been fleecing Kenya for decades, snatching public resources like vultures and leaving nothing but misery in their wake. And yet, they have the audacity to parade their stolen riches as some kind of legacy? Please. For instance, will our children refer to an idiot like George Ruo old money in the years to come? Don’t make me laugh. His money is as old as the last bribe they pocketed or the last plot of land they grabbed from a vulnerable community. These are the architects of Kenya’s suffering, the ones who’ve built empires on the backs of the poor, all while cloaking themselves in the shiny veneer of “success.” If we had a functional government, one that actually cared about justice - these crooks would be stripped of their loot faster than you can say “offshore account.” Their so-called wealth would vanish, and they’d be left with nothing but their tattered reputations. Compare that to real old money, the kind you see in places like the U.S. Take the Cadillacs, for instance, who started a grain processing plant back in the 1800s and turned it into one of the world’s largest agricultural empires. Or Ford, whose name is synonymous with innovation and industry. Those families built something. They created jobs, drove progress, and left a legacy that’s actually worth celebrating. Their wealth is rooted in effort, ideas, and tangible contributions to society - not in looting public coffers or swindling land from defenseless communities like the Kenyatta Family Criminal Enterprise (KFCE). But in Kenya? The “old money” crowd is a different breed. Their great-granddaddy didn’t have a brilliant idea that changed the world. No, their daddy was probably an MP who siphoned off the entire constituency budget, stashed it in some shady offshore account, or “invested” it in a string of dubious businesses. That’s not wealth; that’s theft dressed up in a fancy suit. Trace their money, and you’ll find a trail of tears - stolen land, rigged tenders, and a legacy of greed that’s left Kenya poorer for it. So, let’s stop pretending. There’s no old money in Kenya, just old corruption. These people aren’t tycoons; they’re thieves who belong behind bars, not on pedestals. The next time someone tries to flex their “old money” credentials, remind them: real wealth builds, creates, and uplifts. Theirs just destroys. And if a truly transformative government ever takes charge, one that puts Kenyans first, these frauds will be exposed for what they are - nothing more than glorified looters hiding behind a myth.

Francis Gaitho

37,025 views • 1 year ago

Israel And Its Supporters Are Causing Attacks On Jewish Institutions Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt gave a bizarre appearance on CNN in response to an attempted car bombing of a Michigan synagogue by a man whose Lebanese family members were killed by Israeli forces. “We are seeing Jewish people, the Jewish state, blamed for the war in the Middle East,” Greenblatt said. “That is wrong. It is wrong to scapegoat, it is wrong to hold Jewish people accountable for something you don’t like on the other side of the planet. And we really need leaders on all sides in politics, running for office, podcasters, to stop with the conspiracies, to stop with the accusations, and then tell us ‘but we oppose antisemitism’. You don’t get to say you’re opposed to hate if you’re trafficking in hateful conspiracy theories.” Now, at first glance it this might read like Greenblatt is taking the entirely reasonable position that it is wrong to blame Jewish Americans for the actions of the Israeli government. But take a closer look at his use of the phrase “the Jewish state”. What Greenblatt is actually doing here is claiming it’s an antisemitic conspiracy theory to blame the state of Israel for its war crimes, while simultaneously lumping all Jewish people in with the actions of that state. That’s what he’s doing when he says “Jewish people, the Jewish state” in the same breath while talking about Israeli acts of mass military violence. It’s so obnoxious how genocide apologists like Greenblatt make a living actively telling everyone that Jews and Judaism are inseparable from the acts of the Israeli government, but whenever there’s an extremist attack by someone who doesn’t distinguish between western Jews and the state of Israel it gets blamed on the pro-Palestine left. Pro-Palestine leftists perform endless verbal gymnastics to avoid conflating Jewish people with the state of Israel, while Israel and its supporters conflate them constantly. Yet we’re always the ones who get blamed whenever there’s a terror attack on a Jewish institution by someone enraged by Israel’s actions. Zionists are the ones doing everything they can to make sure people see the state of Israel as synonymous with Jews and Judaism. That is what they are doing every time they claim a criticism of Israel’s actions is hate speech against Jews. They are claiming that the nation and its government are one and the same as the entirety of the Jewish faith and its adherents. Pro-Palestine leftists have been doing the exact opposite. We go to great pains to make sure all our arguments are carefully worded to avoid being interpreted as an attack on the Jewish faith, making it clear that our grievance is with the state of Israel and the political ideology of Zionism which supports that state’s abusive nature. And then Israel apologists come in and smear those meticulously crafted arguments as a hateful attack on all Jews everywhere. Zionists are therefore responsible for the growing perception that our Jewish neighbors and countrymen are culpable for the abuses of the Israeli government. When more attacks on Jewish institutions occur (and they will), it is Israel and its supporters who will hold the blame for this, not the pro-Palestine left. I am not saying attacks on Jewish institutions should happen. I am not saying it will be good when they do happen. I’m saying it will happen, and when it happens it will be a terrible thing. And it will be the fault of Israel and its supporters. We’ve been running around like crazy trying to stop this, falling all over ourselves to thwart the Zionist efforts to conflate Jews with Israel, but our voices aren’t strong enough. We’re not the ones getting loudly amplified by every mass media outlet, they are. It’s not people like me getting invited to appear on CNN to talk to Wolf Blitzer, it’s people like Jonathan Greenblatt. So when we lose the narrative war on this front and the next extremist attack occurs, it won’t be our fault. It will be theirs. It will be the fault of Israel and its apologists. We fought them as hard as we could to prevent this, but they won. And the consequences of this will therefore rest squarely on their shoulders.

Israel And Its Supporters Are Causing Attacks On Jewish Institutions Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt gave a bizarre appearance on CNN in response to an attempted car bombing of a Michigan synagogue by a man whose Lebanese family members were killed by Israeli forces. “We are seeing Jewish people, the Jewish state, blamed for the war in the Middle East,” Greenblatt said. “That is wrong. It is wrong to scapegoat, it is wrong to hold Jewish people accountable for something you don’t like on the other side of the planet. And we really need leaders on all sides in politics, running for office, podcasters, to stop with the conspiracies, to stop with the accusations, and then tell us ‘but we oppose antisemitism’. You don’t get to say you’re opposed to hate if you’re trafficking in hateful conspiracy theories.” Now, at first glance it this might read like Greenblatt is taking the entirely reasonable position that it is wrong to blame Jewish Americans for the actions of the Israeli government. But take a closer look at his use of the phrase “the Jewish state”. What Greenblatt is actually doing here is claiming it’s an antisemitic conspiracy theory to blame the state of Israel for its war crimes, while simultaneously lumping all Jewish people in with the actions of that state. That’s what he’s doing when he says “Jewish people, the Jewish state” in the same breath while talking about Israeli acts of mass military violence. It’s so obnoxious how genocide apologists like Greenblatt make a living actively telling everyone that Jews and Judaism are inseparable from the acts of the Israeli government, but whenever there’s an extremist attack by someone who doesn’t distinguish between western Jews and the state of Israel it gets blamed on the pro-Palestine left. Pro-Palestine leftists perform endless verbal gymnastics to avoid conflating Jewish people with the state of Israel, while Israel and its supporters conflate them constantly. Yet we’re always the ones who get blamed whenever there’s a terror attack on a Jewish institution by someone enraged by Israel’s actions. Zionists are the ones doing everything they can to make sure people see the state of Israel as synonymous with Jews and Judaism. That is what they are doing every time they claim a criticism of Israel’s actions is hate speech against Jews. They are claiming that the nation and its government are one and the same as the entirety of the Jewish faith and its adherents. Pro-Palestine leftists have been doing the exact opposite. We go to great pains to make sure all our arguments are carefully worded to avoid being interpreted as an attack on the Jewish faith, making it clear that our grievance is with the state of Israel and the political ideology of Zionism which supports that state’s abusive nature. And then Israel apologists come in and smear those meticulously crafted arguments as a hateful attack on all Jews everywhere. Zionists are therefore responsible for the growing perception that our Jewish neighbors and countrymen are culpable for the abuses of the Israeli government. When more attacks on Jewish institutions occur (and they will), it is Israel and its supporters who will hold the blame for this, not the pro-Palestine left. I am not saying attacks on Jewish institutions should happen. I am not saying it will be good when they do happen. I’m saying it will happen, and when it happens it will be a terrible thing. And it will be the fault of Israel and its supporters. We’ve been running around like crazy trying to stop this, falling all over ourselves to thwart the Zionist efforts to conflate Jews with Israel, but our voices aren’t strong enough. We’re not the ones getting loudly amplified by every mass media outlet, they are. It’s not people like me getting invited to appear on CNN to talk to Wolf Blitzer, it’s people like Jonathan Greenblatt. So when we lose the narrative war on this front and the next extremist attack occurs, it won’t be our fault. It will be theirs. It will be the fault of Israel and its apologists. We fought them as hard as we could to prevent this, but they won. And the consequences of this will therefore rest squarely on their shoulders.

Caitlin Johnstone

33,183 views • 6 months ago

A grant of $500,000 toward a housing deposit may sound attractive, but if there are no houses available to purchase, all it does is drive up prices, making housing even more unaffordable for everyone. Good policy must go beyond political appeal; it must address the root of the problem. While financial support like grants and mortgage subsidies may help individuals in the short term, they do nothing to resolve the underlying shortage of housing stock. That’s why this Government has focused on the supply side of the housing equation. We are building more homes. 2,064 new housing units are being added to the national stock. These are opportunities for young professionals, retirees, low-income earners, and persons living with disabilities to access decent, affordable shelter. A sound housing policy must be rooted in equity and efficiency. It must ensure that at least one person is made better off, without making anyone else worse off. This is the standard of good governance. When policies are not carefully structured, they can unintentionally deepen inequalities, even when they sound generous. We must also think about fairness. Should we offer grants only to the young, while ignoring those who have worked hard for decades but still do not own a home? Housing policy must reflect the diversity of need in our society, not just age, but income, location, and circumstance. Ultimately, our priority must be to build more houses, particularly affordable homes, because only then can we meet growing demand without distorting the market. Once supply increases, targeted assistance becomes more effective and less inflationary. This is the approach we are taking: build more houses, ensure equitable access, and manage support wisely. That is how we secure Jamaica’s housing future.

A grant of $500,000 toward a housing deposit may sound attractive, but if there are no houses available to purchase, all it does is drive up prices, making housing even more unaffordable for everyone. Good policy must go beyond political appeal; it must address the root of the problem. While financial support like grants and mortgage subsidies may help individuals in the short term, they do nothing to resolve the underlying shortage of housing stock. That’s why this Government has focused on the supply side of the housing equation. We are building more homes. 2,064 new housing units are being added to the national stock. These are opportunities for young professionals, retirees, low-income earners, and persons living with disabilities to access decent, affordable shelter. A sound housing policy must be rooted in equity and efficiency. It must ensure that at least one person is made better off, without making anyone else worse off. This is the standard of good governance. When policies are not carefully structured, they can unintentionally deepen inequalities, even when they sound generous. We must also think about fairness. Should we offer grants only to the young, while ignoring those who have worked hard for decades but still do not own a home? Housing policy must reflect the diversity of need in our society, not just age, but income, location, and circumstance. Ultimately, our priority must be to build more houses, particularly affordable homes, because only then can we meet growing demand without distorting the market. Once supply increases, targeted assistance becomes more effective and less inflationary. This is the approach we are taking: build more houses, ensure equitable access, and manage support wisely. That is how we secure Jamaica’s housing future.

Andrew Holness

22,895 views • 1 year ago